Over the past four decades, artificial intelligence (AI) research has flourished at the nexus of academia and industry. However, Big Tech companies have increasingly acquired the edge in computational resources, big data, and talent. So far, it has been largely unclear how many papers the industry funds, how their citation impact compares to non-funded papers, and what drives industry interest. This study fills that gap by quantifying the number of industry-funded papers at 10 top AI conferences (e.g., ICLR, CVPR, AAAI, ACL) and their citation influence. We analyze about 49.8K papers, about 1.8M citations from AI papers to other papers, and about 2.3M citations from other papers to AI papers from 1998-2022 in Scopus. Through seven research questions, we examine the volume and evolution of industry funding in AI research, the citation impact of funded papers, the diversity and temporal range of their citations, and the subfields in which industry predominantly acts. Our findings reveal that industry presence has grown markedly since 2015, from less than 2 percent to more than 11 percent in 2020. Between 2018 and 2022, 12 percent of industry-funded papers achieved high citation rates as measured by the h5-index, compared to 4 percent of non-industry-funded papers and 2 percent of non-funded papers. Top AI conferences engage more with industry-funded research than non-funded research, as measured by our newly proposed metric, the Citation Preference Ratio (CPR). We show that industry-funded research is increasingly insular, citing predominantly other industry-funded papers while referencing fewer non-funded papers. These findings reveal new trends in AI research funding, including a shift towards more industry-funded papers and their growing citation impact, greater insularity of industry-funded work than non-funded work, and a preference of industry-funded research to cite recent work.

Peer review in academic research aims not only to ensure factual correctness but also to identify work of high scientific potential that can shape future research directions. This task is especially critical in fast-moving fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), yet it has become increasingly difficult given the rapid growth of submissions. In this paper, we investigate an underexplored measure for identifying high-impact research: authors' own rankings of their multiple submissions to the same AI conference. Grounded in game-theoretic reasoning, we hypothesize that self-rankings are informative because authors possess unique understanding of their work's conceptual depth and long-term promise. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a large-scale experiment at a leading AI conference, where 1,342 researchers self-ranked their 2,592 submissions by perceived quality. Tracking outcomes over more than a year, we found that papers ranked highest by their authors received twice as many citations as their lowest-ranked counterparts; self-rankings were especially effective at identifying highly cited papers (those with over 150 citations). Moreover, we showed that self-rankings outperformed peer review scores in predicting future citation counts. Our results remained robust after accounting for confounders such as preprint posting time and self-citations. Together, these findings demonstrate that authors' self-rankings provide a reliable and valuable complement to peer review for identifying and elevating high-impact research in AI.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences are essential for advancing research, sharing knowledge, and fostering academic community. However, their rapid expansion has rendered the centralized conference model increasingly unsustainable. This paper offers a data-driven diagnosis of a structural crisis that threatens the foundational goals of scientific dissemination, equity, and community well-being. We identify four key areas of strain: (1) scientifically, with per-author publication rates more than doubling over the past decade to over 4.5 papers annually; (2) environmentally, with the carbon footprint of a single conference exceeding the daily emissions of its host city; (3) psychologically, with 71% of online community discourse reflecting negative sentiment and 35% referencing mental health concerns; and (4) logistically, with attendance at top conferences such as NeurIPS 2024 beginning to outpace venue capacity. These pressures point to a system that is misaligned with its core mission. In response, we propose the Community-Federated Conference (CFC) model, which separates peer review, presentation, and networking into globally coordinated but locally organized components, offering a more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient path forward for AI research.

At this year's International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML2025), Jaeho Kim, Yunseok Lee and Seulki Lee won an outstanding position paper award for their work Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards. We hear from Jaeho about the problems they were trying to address, and their proposed author feedback mechanism and reviewer reward system. Our position paper addresses the problems plaguing current AI conference peer review systems, while also raising questions about the future direction of peer review. The imminent problem with the current peer review system in AI conferences is the exponential growth in paper submissions driven by increasing interest in AI. To put this with numbers, NeurIPS received over 30,000 submissions this year, while ICLR saw a 59.8% increase in submissions in just one year.

I come from Trinidad and Tobago. As a country that was once colonized by the British, I am wary of the ways that inequalities between the global north and global south risk being perpetuated in the digital age. When we consider the lack of inclusion of the global south in discussions about artificial intelligence (AI), I think about how this translates to an eventual lack of economic leverage and geopolitical engagement in this technology that has captivated academics within the industrialised country I reside, the United States. As a scientist, I experienced an early rite of passage into the world of Silicon Valley, the land of techno-utopianism, and the promise of AI as a net positive for all. But, as an academic attending my first academic AI conference in 2019, I began to notice inconsistencies in the audience to whom the promise of AI was directed.

The explosive growth of AI research has driven paper submissions at flagship AI conferences to unprecedented levels, necessitating many venues in 2025 (e.g., CVPR, ICCV, KDD, AAAI, IJCAI, WSDM) to enforce strict per-author submission limits and to desk-reject any excess papers by simple ID order. While this policy helps reduce reviewer workload, it may unintentionally discard valuable papers and penalize authors' efforts. In this paper, we ask an essential research question on whether it is possible to follow submission limits while minimizing needless rejections. We first formalize the current desk-rejection policies as an optimization problem, and then develop a practical algorithm based on linear programming relaxation and a rounding scheme. Under extensive evaluation on 11 years of real-world ICLR (International Conference on Learning Representations) data, our method preserves up to $19.23\%$ more papers without violating any author limits. Moreover, our algorithm is highly efficient in practice, with all results on ICLR data computed within at most 53.64 seconds. Our work provides a simple and practical desk-rejection strategy that significantly reduces unnecessary rejections, demonstrating strong potential to improve current CS conference submission policies.

The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over review quality and reviewer responsibility. This position paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop where authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework that promotes a sustainable, high-quality peer review system. The current review system can be viewed as an interaction between three parties: the authors, reviewers, and system (i.e., conference), where we posit that all three parties share responsibility for the current problems. However, issues with authors can only be addressed through policy enforcement and detection tools, and ethical concerns can only be corrected through self-reflection. As such, this paper focuses on reforming reviewer accountability with systematic rewards through two key mechanisms: (1) a two-stage bi-directional review system that allows authors to evaluate reviews while minimizing retaliatory behavior, (2)a systematic reviewer reward system that incentivizes quality reviewing. We ask for the community's strong interest in these problems and the reforms that are needed to enhance the peer review process.

'The Five' co-hosts react to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer roasted for a video feeding Doritos to a left-wing influencer. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was roasted for delivering another "word salad" on a public stage after trying to tie the "innovation" of Big Tech to her love of nacho cheese Doritos during an artificial intelligence conference. "Kamala just tried to explain innovation and it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard," popular conservative X account End Wokeness posted to its account accompanied by a clip of Harris. Harris attended the Human[X] AI conference Sunday in Las Vegas, which was billed as Harris' "first post-election address." She took the stage with Nuno Sebastiao, the CEO of data science company Feedzai.

As AI research surges in both impact and volume, conferences have imposed submission limits to maintain paper quality and alleviate organizational pressure. In this work, we examine the fairness of desk-rejection systems under submission limits and reveal that existing practices can result in substantial inequities. Specifically, we formally define the paper submission limit problem and identify a critical dilemma: when the number of authors exceeds three, it becomes impossible to reject papers solely based on excessive submissions without negatively impacting innocent authors. Thus, this issue may unfairly affect early-career researchers, as their submissions may be penalized due to co-authors with significantly higher submission counts, while senior researchers with numerous papers face minimal consequences. To address this, we propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism and formally define two fairness metrics: individual fairness and group fairness. We prove that optimizing individual fairness is NP-hard, whereas group fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming. Through case studies, we demonstrate that our proposed system ensures greater equity than existing methods, including those used in CVPR 2025, offering a more socially just approach to managing excessive submissions in AI conferences.

Papers published in top conferences contribute influential discoveries that are reshaping the landscape of modern Artificial Intelligence (AI). We analyzed 87,137 papers from 11 AI conferences to examine publication trends over the past decade. Our findings reveal a consistent increase in both the number of papers and authors, reflecting the growing interest in AI research. We also observed a rise in prolific researchers who publish dozens of papers at the same conference each year. In light of this analysis, the AI research community should consider revisiting authorship policies, addressing equity concerns, and evaluating the workload of junior researchers to foster a more sustainable and inclusive research environment.